As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

What is your understanding of what a "Stand Your Ground" law actually is?

Bump... NGFM, please get to this when you have a moment. Thanks.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Quesi, I'll have to wait till I get home to listen to the video. But I have to tell you, my immediate reaction is why the hell would Martin think Zimmerman was going to rape him? Seems like a strange suspicion to have.

You know MM, maybe he didn't fully embrace the fact that he was a scary, suspicious looking person who deserved to have his every movement scrutinized.

Maybe he saw a "creepy" man who was clearly stalking him, and he was trying to figure out why.

Maybe he didn't say to himself, "well, I'm a scary looking black kid in a hoodie, and the guy who is following me is probably just a good guy who justifiably wants to keep the neighborhood safe from people who look like me."

Maybe those thoughts didn't occur to him.

He knew he was being stalked. Observed. Followed. He was alone and vulnerable on a dark, rainy night. Why? Why? Why would a grown man in a car be stalking him? Not to rob him. He was a high school kid, and he didn't have anything that would be of value to an adult man in a car.

Why do creepy adult men follow kids on dark nights?

My daughter knows there are "bad guys" out there, and that she should never go near a car or van if someone says they have candy to share or kittens to show her, and that she is NEVER to walk away with someone she doesn't know, even if they ask for help looking for lost puppies or anything like that. She knows if someone is following her, she should shout "Why are you following me? I don't know you!" She knows that there are some "bad guys" who might try to do bad things. She told me once, she thinks the bad guys might capture her and come to our home and take away "Pinkie" her beloved pink stuffed dog, and then he would be gone forever. She can't imagine anything worse than that. But she is a full decade younger than Trayvon was when he died, and a decade ago, Trayvon probably had more innocent ideas of what "bad guys" do when they "catch" you.

But what do the "bad guys" of everyone's nightmares do when they catch you?

Listen to her testimony. She is not strategically creating an argument to be used by the prosecution. She is struggling to remember the words in the blur of that horrible night. She struggles over the words, but once they finish badgering her about her pronunciation and making her say the phrase over and over again, she becomes very clear about what the words meant.

He might be a rapist. And no one heard that. No one latched onto that.

I learned something today that I didn't know. And I'm really mad I didn't know it.

Much mockery was made of the testimony by Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while he was being stalked. She was not articulate enough. And no one understood what she was saying.

But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER. Much was made about this! Trayvon wasn't innocent! Cracker? Cracker? He was the racist.

But really. No one was listening to Rachel. She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by acreepy-ass cracker. She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker. Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex.

Everyone heard the word cracker. AH HA!!! See Trayvon must be the racist! And no one heard what she said next. She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted.

Everyone was having so much fun mocking her, that they were not even listening to her. [1]

This kid, in the last moments of his life, knew he was being stalked, and thought he was going to be raped.

And the prosecution didn't pick up on it. And the media didn't pick up on it. And everyone heard the word cracker, and no one heard anything else.

Now, if this point had been brought up, perhaps it might have explained the boo boo on Zimmerman's nose.

And if anyone on this forum listens to this piece and mocks her, I will give you negative karma - which I don't do very often

I guess that is one possible read. Another read is that he called him a creapy ass cracker and meant Cracker in the sense we all thought. Is there a lot of male rapes in the area. Is the news reporting on the serial "creepy Ass-Cracker" case? I don't know how common the term ass-cracker is among Trayvons generation but I have never heard it and never heard it used to defend his statements until now. So of the hundreds of threads I have read on the net not once did I stumble on this.

Treyvon was not in mortal danger until he attacked and attempted to murder zimmerman. Zimmerman was in real danger because someone was bouncing his head off concrete a real and present, not imagined danger. Calling a broken nose a booboo does not remove the fact that his brain was being bounced against the skull in such a way as death or serious bodily harm is a very real possibility. Did george have to wait until he was unconscious to pull his gun, perhaps a skull fracture or 2 would have been acceptable?

I still vote for tragedy not criminal.

Let me bang your head against the concrete and tell me how you feel about the situation? If you had a knife, gun or other would you use it to stop me? If not when would you choose to use deadly force?

Treyvon was not in mortal danger until he attacked and attempted to murder zimmerman.

Wow, so Treyvon is not permitted to defend himself when in fear but Zimmerman is? Which of the two was peaceful and minding his own business before this confrontation?

Murder was the wrong charge. But somebody was indeed culpable and it wasn't Treyvon.

I've been in a situation not completely different to this. I had the gun and the (actual) robber, who I first confronted inside my house, who then escaped out of window at the back of the house, was running down my driveway alongside the house to meet up with a getaway car out front when I intersected him in the front garden. I didn't shoot at any stage - not inside my house or outside. I only threatened him with the gun - that was enough to diffuse the situation.

But if I were itching to get a shot off I could have blotted him right there and then. See the difference? And I actually knew for certain he was up to no good - not just suspicion - he'd been right inside my house and was already wearing one of my jackets he'd taken.

Wow, so Treyvon is not permitted to defend himself when in fear but Zimmerman is?

No one at all is permitted to "defend himself when in fear". To use force in self-defense, you must among other things reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Simply being afraid of someone isn't even close to being a sufficient standard.

Quote

I've been in a situation not completely different to this. I had the gun and the (actual) robber, who I first confronted inside my house, who then escaped out of window at the back of the house, was running down my driveway alongside the house to meet up with a getaway car out front when I intersected him in the front garden. I didn't shoot at any stage - not inside my house or outside. I only threatened him with the gun - that was enough to diffuse the situation.

And you acted properly, for which you are definitely to be commended, but your situation was quite a bit different. For one thing, it is quite clear who the aggressor was in your situation. It is debatable, at best, whether Zimmerman was the aggressor, or whether he was even acting in a manner that could be considered aggressive. For another thing, your home intruder had the opportunity to flee, which Zimmerman did not.

Quote

But if I were itching to get a shot off I could have blotted him right there and then. See the difference?

Yes, very much so. If you were to shoot someone who was fleeing, you'd be charged with a crime and almost certainly convicted. You cannot use deadly force on someone who is trying to run away from you.

Quote

And I actually knew for certain he was up to no good - not just suspicion - he'd been right inside my house and was already wearing one of my jackets he'd taken.

And even at that, use of force would not have been automatically justified. As soon as he turned to run, you no longer had a legal justification for use of force.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER. Much was made about this! Trayvon wasn't innocent! Cracker? Cracker? He was the racist.

But really. No one was listening to Rachel. She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by acreepy-ass cracker. She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker. Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex.

Everyone heard the word cracker. AH HA!!! See Trayvon must be the racist! And no one heard what she said next. She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted.

So it is better to be a homophobe than a racist?

Also, in the video you posted it is difficult to determine the context/phrasing of the term "creepy ass cracker" because every time the witness says all three words together the audio is muted out on the "cracker" part.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

No one at all is permitted to "defend himself when in fear". To use force in self-defense, you must among other things reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Simply being afraid of someone isn't even close to being a sufficient standard.

PD, I love your posts But do you really think Treyvon would have kept coming if he saw a gun? If he was warned to back off? I think that is far-fetched - it would take severe intoxication or a death wish to attack someone pointing a gun at you.

But do you really think Treyvon would have kept coming if he saw a gun? If he was warned to back off?

It has been known to happen, but in all likelihood, no, he would have fled.

Quote

I think that is far-fetched - it would take severe intoxication or a death wish to attack someone pointing a gun at you.

Yes, it is rare, but even so, I'm not sure what your point is? Zimmerman's gun was concealed, as is required by Florida law, so Martin would not have taken its presence into account before confronting Zimmerman. The gun was not disclosed until Zimmerman was already on the ground with Martin on top of him, and even then, it was only because the scuffle caused Zimmerman's clothing to shift, revealing the gun.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Zimmerman was in real danger because someone was bouncing his head off concrete a real and present, not imagined danger. Calling a broken nose a booboo does not remove the fact that his brain was being bounced against the skull in such a way as death or serious bodily harm is a very real possibility. Did george have to wait until he was unconscious to pull his gun, perhaps a skull fracture or 2 would have been acceptable?

George must be a really tough, resilient guy to have sustained such a brutal beating, only to have the injuries heal before the EMS even got there!

According to the EMS, "Pt has abrasion to his forehead, + bleeding and tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head."

The treatment he received when the EMS arrived consisted of cleaning the wounds, and handing him back to the police. No medication. No xrays. No concerns about a potential concussion. It doesn't even sound like they gave him ice, which is what I do when my daughter gets a bump on her nose or head.

Let me bang your head against the concrete and tell me how you feel about the situation? If you had a knife, gun or other would you use it to stop me? If not when would you choose to use deadly force?

May I turn the question around? If I were stalking you, and you knew it - you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?

Even police sometimes make mistakes, though they are trained. (Remember the police in NY who fired at a suspect on a crowded street and missed him although he was a few feet away? Passersby were hit by ricocheting bullets.)

I think there is a link in the gun fail thread that showed NY cops only hit their intended target about 37% of the time. That means they miss 63%. And they are one of the best PDs in that regard. That's why 9 people were wounded when they shot up that crazy guy last year. The crazy guy didn't fire a shot.

A lot of the time police are not trained as much as they should be. They are trained in combat, but not how to recognize when, say, someone is having a stroke. Or how to tell the difference between an agressive dog and a friendly one (cops pretty much shoot every dog they see during arrests, because they can).[1]

Yes, it is rare, but even so, I'm not sure what your point is? Zimmerman's gun was concealed, as is required by Florida law, so Martin would not have taken its presence into account before confronting Zimmerman. The gun was not disclosed until Zimmerman was already on the ground with Martin on top of him, and even then, it was only because the scuffle caused Zimmerman's clothing to shift, revealing the gun.

I'm not sure that is true. Zimmerman said that he had his gun holstered, on his back, above his buttocks, under a shirt and a jacket. And that he was on his back, with Trayvon sitting on top of him, trying to get the gun, and that somehow, George managed to get it first?

Most cops actually aren't (as it appears you already know). Most people are under the impression that police officers spend countless hours practicing and performing all sorts of drills and everything with their guns and that they are supremely well-trained in gun usage, about as far above Mere Mortal Man in this regard as an F-22 pilot is above an RC helicopter hobbyist. In fact, law enforcement officers for the most part don't get much firearm training at all. Even the LAPD, which has one of the highest training requirements of any agency in the nation, requires only about seventy hours of training before clearing a cop to carry a gun on duty.

A related problem is that police departments are becoming increasingly reluctant to hire officers who enjoy shooting. While that's understandable in some ways, there's also the fact that, for the most part, people only become skilled at activities they enjoy, which has obvious implications for law enforcement hiring practices.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

They were probably both on top at various times - which would explain the witness accounts.

In a struggle like that, that does seem likely. It seems much more likely that we'll never know for sure.

Quote

But the gun was used to shoot - not to warn.

I'm not sure how the law works in Oz, but here in the United States, the distinction between the two is a lot narrower than most people realize. Among other things, generally speaking, the only time you can brandish a gun as a warning is when it would also be lawful for you to actually fire the gun in self-defense. Also, firing the gun is considered "using deadly force" regardless of how you actually fire the gun -- for example, in the case of your home intruder, even if you had pointed your gun straight up at the ceiling and fired it, legally, it would be considered "use of deadly force" just as much as it would have been if you had fired directly at the intruder. (This is why those who have studied self-defense law to any extent at all know that there's no such thing as a "warning shot".)

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

They were probably both on top at various times - which would explain the witness accounts.

But the gun was used to shoot - not to warn.

Nice. And at about 55 seconds in, we see the prosecution sitting on the mannequin, with the prosecutor playing Trayvon, and the mannequin as Zimmerman. And he asks the forensic expert "where would the gun be now?"

Either the gun was already drawn, or Zimmerman was on top. There is no way he drew the gun with the kid sitting on him. It didn't happen.

Although I was in the Army, my initial training on guns came from my Dad. Coming from the Midwest (Nebraska) in the '70's we all had guns. I was taught not to point a gun at anyone or anything that I didn't intend to kill. I was also taught not to bring a gun to any confrontation unless I was prepared to use it.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

I'm not sure how the law works in Oz, but here in the United States, the distinction between the two is a lot narrower than most people realize. Among other things, generally speaking, the only time you can brandish a gun as a warning is when it would also be lawful for you to actually fire the gun in self-defense.

I'm not sure how the law works in Oz, but here in the United States, the distinction between the two is a lot narrower than most people realize. Among other things, generally speaking, the only time you can brandish a gun as a warning is when it would also be lawful for you to actually fire the gun in self-defense.

In that case I concede But only to the extent that the law is an ass

It makes sense when you think about it: the only time you can legally threaten to use deadly force is when it would be legal for you to actually use deadly force. Why would you be allowed to threaten someone's life under circumstances when it would not be lawful to kill him?

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Mostly, while carrying concealed, one must actively avoid conflict. Any responsible person with concealed-carry privileges hopes to go through life never having to draw the gun on anything but a target at a range. Wearing the gun means one avoids arguments with a spouse, a neighbor or some belligerent drunk who stumbles from a bar. The gun means the user walks away from conflicts to avoid using it for anything other than stopping an aggressive and harmful attack, on self or others, that cannot be resolved in some better manner.

Zimmerman should have minded his own business on the night of Feb. 26, 2012. A teenager wandering a neighborhood - even one who looks like he might be on drugs - is not a crime.

In a free country, a law-abiding young man should be free to walk in the rain, for no apparent reason, without having to explain himself to anyone - including cops or a self-appointed watchman.

and ignored the training he either received or should have received as part of becoming a member of the volunteer neighborhood watch team

When did the above happen? According to testimony, what you claim is false and GZ did in fact heed the warning of the dispatcher when the dispatcher said not to follow Trayvon and immediately turned to rendevouz with the officers he had called to the scene.

According to GZ, he got out of his truck not to pursue Trayvon, but because he was asked if he could tell the dispatcher an exact location. The point of him getting out was to go to the front of the building to get an address so he could tell where he saw Trayvon last.

May I turn the question around? If I were stalking you, and you knew it - you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?

Granted, Trayvon very likely thought he was being stalked, but was justified in that thought. But don't make up stuff Q. GZ did not jump out of his vehicle brandishing a gun according to any evidence. Based on the account, Trayvon after facing off with GZ and seeing GZ reach for something in his pocket. Martin very likely thought GZ was reaching for a weapon and hit GZ in self defense because he felt he was in danger.

and ignored the training he either received or should have received as part of becoming a member of the volunteer neighborhood watch team

When did the above happen? According to testimony, what you claim is false and GZ did in fact heed the warning of the dispatcher when the dispatcher said not to follow Trayvon and immediately turned to rendevouz with the officers he had called to the scene.

According to GZ, he got out of his truck not to pursue Trayvon, but because he was asked if he could tell the dispatcher an exact location. The point of him getting out was to go to the front of the building to get an address so he could tell where he saw Trayvon last.

Not sure what your sources are, but wikipedia has some pretty good footnotes to the transcripts of the conversation. It doesn't include the obscenities or the phrase "fucking coon," however. But you can look that up yourself.

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[70] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[71] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[72][73]

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

May I turn the question around? If I were stalking you, and you knew it - you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?

Granted, Trayvon very likely thought he was being stalked, but was justified in that thought. But don't make up stuff Q. GZ did not jump out of his vehicle brandishing a gun according to any evidence. Based on the account, Trayvon after facing off with GZ and seeing GZ reach for something in his pocket. Martin very likely thought GZ was reaching for a weapon and hit GZ in self defense because he felt he was in danger.

Look, no one will ever know what really happened. But as I previously stated, Zimmerman's version, in which Trayvon was on top of him, reaching for his gun, but Zimmerman got it first, that just didn't happen. There is no way that Zimmerman got the gun out of his back holster, with Trayvon sitting on top of him. It didn't happen.

So either Zimmerman had the gun pulled already, or Zimmerman was on top. Forensic evidence suggests that Trayvon was on top when he was shot. And that leaves Zimmerman with the gun in his hand before Trayvon was on top of him.

If you think that I am "making it up," then please look at William's video, at about 55 seconds in.

The gun means the user walks away from conflicts to avoid using it for anything other than stopping an aggressive and harmful attack, on self or others, that cannot be resolved in some better manner.

It is a good sentiment, and I agree with it. But my understanding of Stand Your Ground is this is not the case where SYG is the law. Thus, the name of the law. It is possible I do not understand.

Self-defense laws vary by jurisdiction, but in the United States, for the most part, a number of conditions must be present for a legitimate claim of self-defense:

1) The individual must believe he is in imminent danger of death or serious injury;2) That belief must be held for valid reasons;3) The amount of force used to prevent the threat of death or injury must not be greater than reasonably necessary to prevent the threat; and4) Before using force for self-defense, the individual must first make an attempt to flee from the aggressor if such an attempt is feasible.

There are some other details as well -- for example, if you see a woman getting raped, you're allowed to use force to rescue her; if you're trespassing and the landowner confronts you, you have no claim of self-defense, that kind of thing. But the above list is the big stuff.

All that "Stand Your Ground" laws do is remove condition number four -- the other three elements remain in place. To give a more concrete example: You're walking down the street somewhere, minding your own business, perhaps carrying a gun/baton/pepper spray/whatever, or maybe you're just a skilled martial artist. You get the idea. A thug comes up to you and pulls a weapon.

In a state without a Stand Your Ground law, you may not use your gun, baton, or martial arts skills to protect yourself, at least, not yet. First, you have to try to run away from the guy if there's a reasonable chance of being able to escape, and if you proceed to use of force before attempting to flee, you can be charged with a crime -- typically some form of assault and/or battery, or even homicide if you end up killing the guy. You may only use force to protect yourself if escape is not feasible, or if you've attempted to escape and failed to do so.

In a state with a Stand Your Ground law, however, you may proceed directly to use of force in self-defense. (You can still try to run if you want, but you're not legally obliged to.) It is called a "Stand Your Ground" law simply because it removes the duty to retreat.

Look, no one will ever know what really happened. But as I previously stated, Zimmerman's version, in which Trayvon was on top of him, reaching for his gun, but Zimmerman got it first, that just didn't happen. There is no way that Zimmerman got the gun out of his back holster, with Trayvon sitting on top of him. It didn't happen.

So either Zimmerman had the gun pulled already, or Zimmerman was on top. Forensic evidence suggests that Trayvon was on top when he was shot. And that leaves Zimmerman with the gun in his hand before Trayvon was on top of him.

If you think that I am "making it up," then please look at William's video, at about 55 seconds in.

I read the Daily Kos article and what I don't get is why the assumption that GZ had to literally be flat on his back at all times. In the process of trying to scoot to get his head off of the concrete, it is very plausible and quite likely that his was not literally flat on the ground with both buttocks pressed against the grass. As one tries to twist and squirm, the right side one one's ass could come off the ground and be elevated enough to make accessing anything fastened to that area pretty easy.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman already had the gun brandished, none at all. The evidence that we have been given supports what GZ said happened. Are there some holes, perhaps, but we can fill in those blanks with whatever we want to. All we can do is go where what has been revealed leads and despite the fact that Zimmerman could have lied and made up an untrue account, acting as if we know the truth to be something else far more sinister ain't a good look.

I read the Daily Kos article and what I don't get is why the assumption that GZ had to literally be flat on his back at all times. In the process of trying to scoot to get his head off of the concrete, it is very plausible and quite likely that his was not literally flat on the ground with both buttocks pressed against the grass. As one tries to twist and squirm, the right side one one's ass could come off the ground and be elevated enough to make accessing anything fastened to that area pretty easy.

Zimmerman says that Trayvon was sitting on top of him. Unless Trayvon was sitting on his thighs or knees, (which seems pretty unlikely, and is not a scenario that anyone suggested in any of the reenactments) Trayvon's legs would have blocked his access to the gun. Did you see the video?

Either Zimmerman was on top, or the gun was out already. In either case, Zimmerman was lying. Given the fact that he was really hyped up, as evidenced by both the content of his words during the 911 call, and his tone, as well as the forensic evidence that suggests that the shot was made while Trayvon was over Zimmerman, I believe that he had the gun out to begin with.